ML20023C211
| ML20023C211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1983 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305160196 | |
| Download: ML20023C211 (4) | |
Text
6...
o' o
u DISTRIBUTION
" Docket Nos: 50-413 414 NRC PDR MAY 61983.
Local PDR LB #4 r/f EAdEnsani Docket hos: 50-413 KJabbour and 50-414 TNovak MDuncan ELJordan,DEQA:
IE JMTaylor, DPR:
IE Hr. H. B, Tucker, Vice President ACRS(16)
Huclear Production Departnent RBallard Duke Power Connany RGonzales 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear fir. Tucker:
Subject:
Request for Additional Infomation - Catawba t!uclear Station -
In the perfomance of the Catawba Station licensing review, the NRC staff has identified the naed for additienal infomation in the Hydrologic Engineering area (Enclosure). This request for additional infomation pertains to confirratory item 1 in the Catawba Safety Evaluation
.s Report. We request that you provide the infcmation herein requested no later than June 10, 1933.
If you require any clarification of this matter, please contact the project manager, Kahtan Jabbour, at (301) 492-7821.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements ccntained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OPS clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Dranch !!o. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page 9305160196 830506 PDR ADOCK 05000413 E
/
.$.l.$k.,k$hl- -h.{-
orrav sunu m >..g7...,..,.g.......gy.g..,.g...g7
....,.g omy NRC FORM 318 (1080) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso m seu-m-em
g
,/
CATAWBA Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President "g
e Nuclear Production Dept.,
. O c'"
Duke Power Company e
422 South Church Street N
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 j 9 w
v.
~
cc: William L. Porter, Esq.
North ' Carolina ElectNc Member? hip Duke Power Company Corp.
3 P.O. Box 33189 3333 North Boulevard t-Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 N ! " '.
Raleigh, North, Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman Saluda River Electric Cooperative.,
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Inc.
e Washingtou. D. C.
20036 207 Sherwood Drive Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 P.O. B9x 95162 Mr. Peter K. VanDoorn m
Raleigh',-f{ orth Carolina 27625 Route 2, Box 179N
~
York, South Carolina 29745 5
Mr. F. J. Twogood Power Systems Division James P. O'Reilly, Regional Admin!strator Westinghouse Electric Corp.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission, P.O. Box 355
. Region II Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 101'l9rietta Street, suite 3100' s Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. J. C. Plunkett, Jr.
V NUS Corporation.1' Boulevard kobert Guild, Esq.
2536 Countryside P.O. Box 12097
, Clearwater, Florida 5 33,515 Charleston, South. Carolina 29412-Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Palmetto Alliance s
Carolina Environssntal Study Group 2135 1/2 Devine Street 854 Henley Place 's Columbia, South. Carolina 29205 Charlotte, North' Carolina 28208 c
CarolF.Kagan, Attorney Richard P. Wilson, Es3
~, i
~4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission S.C. Attorney General's Officc-
'yashington, D. C..?0555 P.O. Box 11549 s s,
~
Columbia, South Carolina 29211 e,
\\
Mr. Henry Presler, Chairman A
Charlotte decklenburg Environmental o
JCoali tion "
7 e
943 Henly Place
'q i -
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 e-t k
s 4
+
~
,\\
\\
[-
s s
9
ENCLOSURE
,1 e
Additional Hydrologic Engineering Questions Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Numbers 50-413/414 240.18 In your analysis of local flooding presented in the FSAR, you (SRP 2.4.2) assumed that all of the drainage system catch basins would remain free and clear of debris.
This analysis showed that water could pond to a maximum elevation o.f 594 feet which is the same eleva-tion as exterior floor entrafnces.
Because of the apparent importance of these catch basins to flood levels and thus to the safety of the plant, it is essential that all catch basins be kept completely free and clear of any debris.
You committed i
to an annual inspection to assure this.
You didn't, however, address the potential for blockage of the catch basins during a design basis rainfall event.
Even partial blockage could result in water levels exceeding exterior door entrances.
The staff's usual position concerning small drains (catch basins) such as those at Catawba, is that no credit should be given to them functioning because small drains often become clogged with debris.
However, because of the large number of drains at Catawba (141) it is unlikely that all drains would become completely blocked with debris.
Therefore, the staff will accept partial credit for catch basins functioning.
If you do take partial credit for the catch basins, you should justify the conservatism of your assumption and commit to include the drainage system in your fomal inspection of water control structures as suggested in RG 1.127.
You should also provide assurances that the catch basins will be inspected prior to all heavy rainfall seasons and routinely during these rainfall seasons.
240.19 According to your analysis, if all catch basins are functioning, (SRP2.4.2) water will pond to the elevation of exterior doors during a PMP.
However, since some of the catch basins could become clogged with debris, water could pond to a higher level and enter safety-related structures.
You should therefore identify all openings where water could enter and describe how this water will affect safety-related equipment.
Alternatively, you should modify the site grading to allow more rapid runoff or commit to providing a more positive salution such as the following:
1.
Artificial barriers such as watertight doors.
2.
Low structural barriers such as curbs located inside or outside safety-related buildings.
I 3.
Other engineered features.
<J D 240.20 As previously discussed with you, additional infomation (SRP 2.4.2) concerning your site-flooding analysis in the FSAR, is needed bafore the staff can continue its review. As a mininum, the following should be provided:
a.
Provide a full scale map showing the site drainage system with details of the catch basins and slotted covers.
Provide dimensions of individual openings in slotted covers.
b.
On map provided in response to (a) above, you should also show roads and railroads together with the top elevations of these at each break in slope.
Other obstructions to flow such as temporary and pemanent buildings, trailers; sheds, etc., should be shown.
c.
You have stated that the gravel bem at the base of the administration and protected area fences will have no effect on flood levels because there is an area where the bem is absent.
Show all fenced areas with and without the berm on map requested in (a) above.
Describe any other assumptions used to detemine that the fence bem will not affect flood levels, d.
You have stated that the entire 139.6 acre drainage area was used to determine inflow but only a smaller area, about 43 acres, was used as a basis for routing the flood.
Provide the inflow hydrograph for the 139.6 acre area, and describe how this hydrograph was developed.
In your response, t
include the time of concentration together with a discussion of how it was detemined.
Describe how the time of concentra-l tion and PMP were used to determine the value of rainfall l
intensity used in the rational formula.
Provide the elevation-storage data and elevation-discharge data used in your flood routing analysis, e.
The switch yard and cooling tower yard will have high points in the ground elevation so that water drains away from the i
power block area.
Provide elevations of these high points and provide analysis to show that a PMP will not flow over the high points to the power block area.
Provide the same information about the high points in the construction yard north of the station.
l j
-